"Even after the firmware update, the EOS M's autofocus times are still slow compared to off-chip systems, and also even to many contrast detection systems. This is also true of the 70D's on-chip phase detection, at about a half second for a full autofocus cycle. The 70D is noticeably faster than that of the EOS M, but still quite a bit slower than even consumer level phase detection systems using a separate sensor."

You know, like most I was and am interested in on-sensor AF advancement and researched the 70D's capability in this regard, and one thing that I found highlighted was that the AF speed for DPAF depended quite a bit on how the camera was set up. Particularly, stuff like face detection that requires extra input from the processor was enabled by default, and when disabled allowed the camera's on-sensor AF to perform far closer to a conventional mirror-based phase-detection setup.

I'd suspect that the next round of DPAF sensors will surprise us both in speed and accuracy, but also in versatility, especially if Canon puts some real grunt behind their next camera chipset. Imagine being able to nail focus at f/1.2 at 50mm or 85mm instantly every time by using 'nearest eye' as the AF target on their first DPAF-equipped full-frame camera. No lag, no MA, no awkward composition or cropping in post due to AF sensor placement, just sharp shots every time .

The follow-up DPR wrap-up article (out today) of all conversations with various manufacturers at CP+ was kind of revealing as to Canon's (and Nikon's) reluctance to enter the mirrorless (MILC) market until there is a proven positive financial reason to do so. From the interviews summary (and some outside reading), it seems mirrorless is no grabbing much market share in N. America and Europe, so little reason to develop for Canon.

I liked the comment at the end, about the IQ needs for different applications: HD TV = 2MP; magazine spread = 6MP, and generally, photographers would be fine pulling 8MP images from video feed for publication (I certainly agree, having tried this with the 1DC!).

The interviews' conclusion points unquestionably toward more reliance on video for stills production, a category in which Canon is the indisputable leader in volume, technology, industry inroads and innovation. What the delivery platform will be is in question -- fixed lens mirrorless, MILC, or DSLR.

Canon might have seemed non-committal or coy in this interview to some readers, but my take-away is that they have bigger fish to fry and major changes will continue to develop overall (maybe not to the liking of some die-hard stills-only users).

Anyhow, the signs lead me to be optimistic overall, waiting for the slow, inevitable roll-out of products.

I realise that the vast majority of people post on FM are above average shooters and purchase many more lenses that the 'average' consumer (and often at much higher values), but I over heard a senior Canon representative talking at a trade show recently saying their research had shown that the 'average' Canon camera purchaser bought only 1.2 lenses while the average purchaser of DSLRs and 'C' bodies for video has 6.3 lenses. I'm not sure if he was talking worldwide or just within this territory.

However, with this in mind is it really any wonder they are chasing more of the video market?

While the dual pixel technology is certainly helping the video focusing I think it can also have a major impact in the future of DSLR focusing for stills as well since front/back focusing could become a think of the past with dual pixel focusing doing the fine tuning for you.

Dave_EP wrote:
I realise that the vast majority of people post on FM are above average shooters and purchase many more lenses that the 'average' consumer (and often at much higher values), but I over heard a senior Canon representative talking at a trade show recently saying their research had shown that the 'average' Canon camera purchaser bought only 1.2 lenses while the average purchaser of DSLRs and 'C' bodies for video has 6.3 lenses. I'm not sure if he was talking worldwide or just within this territory.

However, with this in mind is it really any wonder they are chasing more of the video market?

While the dual pixel technology is certainly helping the video focusing I think it can also have a major impact in the future of DSLR focusing for stills as well since front/back focusing could become a think of the past with dual pixel focusing doing the fine tuning for you.

Its pretty funny listening to the bombardment of posts on how conservative Canon is..
Yet..best super teles on the market with class leading IQ and use of Titanium to reduce weight..result..slaughtering Nikon at the big money big profit end and saving my back from an early end.
200-400 which has an inbuilt TC with IQ close if not equaling prime performance.
All the cameras feature great video capability which when you learn to play with it is a major asset. I for one never really used vid until Canon and Gopro arrived now i use it all the time.
To me all of those outweigh and so called sensor deficiencies which are seen by a very very small region of the market.
I see Canon as an innovator as opposed to being conservative just look at the lenses and the IQ they deliver combined with the 1Dx which even Nikons updated body may struggle to match unless they have sorted their Af issues.

Gunzorro wrote:
I liked the comment at the end, about the IQ needs for different applications: HD TV = 2MP; magazine spread = 6MP, and generally, photographers would be fine pulling 8MP images from video feed for publication (I certainly agree, having tried this with the 1DC!).

For casual and family photos, I like the idea of pulling 8 MP stills from video feed. The question is how much memory space do I need?

dehowie wrote:
Its pretty funny listening to the bombardment of posts on how conservative Canon is..
Yet..best super teles on the market with class leading IQ and use of Titanium to reduce weight..result..slaughtering Nikon at the big money big profit end and saving my back from an early end.
200-400 which has an inbuilt TC with IQ close if not equaling prime performance.
All the cameras feature great video capability which when you learn to play with it is a major asset. I for one never really used vid until Canon and Gopro arrived now i use it all the time.
To me all of those outweigh and so called sensor deficiencies which are seen by a very very small region of the market.
I see Canon as an innovator as opposed to being conservative just look at the lenses and the IQ they deliver combined with the 1Dx which even Nikons updated body may struggle to match unless they have sorted their Af issues.

I mostly agree, but 7 years without any real improvements in sensors is getting a bit ridiculous especially when all the competition have made improvements. people cannot miss what they haven't had yet. You won't know what you've been missing with the Canon sensors until you've used one that alows you to push shadows 6 stops without disintegrating for example. It opens up new possibilities. As it is we happily work within the sensors limits or emply other measures like double exposures , hdr etc

Only among the people on these boards or some other online places. The far far majority of the people using Canon today are perfectly happy with the sensor or whatever else on the camera itself. I know dynamic range is good for some things, but it's not what 90-95% of the people out there are doing in photography today. To Canon execs, it's probably Sony that is making the stupid decisions, spending lots of money and time to improve a part of the camera that most people out there don't really care about or even know about anymore.

Canon is basically playing the game, they know they are on top and all they have to do to win is to stay on top. They will innovate when a clear opportunity presents itself, but only when they think it will help (not hurt) their bottom line.

EOS-M, I think it's perfectly clear that Canon didn't want it to succeed. It could have at least made a dent in the west if they had really made an honest attempt at putting out something decent. But most likely, it was dead was from the start, a black sheep of a project led by an exec who was already on the way out (had nothing to lose) and with not enough resources and intentionally crippled so to not risk competing with the DSLR line. That's how most big companies work, innovation just isn't in their blood.

dehowie wrote:
Its pretty funny listening to the bombardment of posts on how conservative Canon is..
Yet..best super teles on the market with class leading IQ and use of Titanium to reduce weight..result..slaughtering Nikon at the big money big profit end and saving my back from an early end.
200-400 which has an inbuilt TC with IQ close if not equaling prime performance.
All the cameras feature great video capability which when you learn to play with it is a major asset. I for one never really used vid until Canon and Gopro arrived now i use it all the time.
To me all of those outweigh and so called sensor deficiencies which are seen by a very very small region of the market.
I see Canon as an innovator as opposed to being conservative just look at the lenses and the IQ they deliver combined with the 1Dx which even Nikons updated body may struggle to match unless they have sorted their Af issues....Show more →

I would agree. I would add the new speedlights as well with built in radio control. Far nicer to setup and control then having to deal with additional PW's or RP's.

No doubt that Canon is behind at the low ISO end but they still push the high ISO IQ and that is all that matters to me. From my standpoint sensor tech has steadily improved.

Access wrote:
Only among the people on these boards or some other online places. The far far majority of the people using Canon today are perfectly happy with the sensor or whatever else on the camera itself. I know dynamic range is good for some things, but it's not what 90-95% of the people out there are doing in photography today. To Canon execs, it's probably Sony that is making the stupid decisions, spending lots of money and time to improve a part of the camera that most people out there don't really care about or even know about anymore.

Canon is basically playing the game, they know they are on top and all they have to do to win is to stay on top. They will innovate when a clear opportunity presents itself, but only when they think it will help (not hurt) their bottom line. ...Show more →

I heard a similar way of saying before. It came from Kodak in regard to digital technology when they decided to stick to film.

Dave_EP wrote:
Or professionals who are using the Canon bodies because they can now get results previously only available with $50,000 systems. We're also not talking 'C' lenses, we're talking EF lenses.

We don't have a single 'C' lenses but we have lots of 'EF" lenses that work very well for video purposes.

Again, you are looking at totally different customers. You are saying the videographers previously shelled out $50,000 for their systems...that sure does not sound like your soccer mom who buys a camera with a kit lens. Obviously the professional will buy more lenses than the consumer. But there are many magnitudes more soccer moms in the world than professional videographers.

thw2 wrote:
For casual and family photos, I like the idea of pulling 8 MP stills from video feed. The question is how much memory space do I need?

I don't. I photograph mainly for the fun of it. I see zero fun in pointing a camera at something, letting loose on the video and then later on the computer seeing what you got. Just an advanced spray and pray approach.

chez wrote:
Again, you are looking at totally different customers. You are saying the videographers previously shelled out $50,000 for their systems...that sure does not sound like your soccer mom who buys a camera with a kit lens. Obviously the professional will buy more lenses than the consumer. But there are many magnitudes more soccer moms in the world than professional videographers.

Chez -- Are you dense, or having a go at Dave? He's clearly said that the Canon DSLR video (aka, 5D2 et. al.) produced (for him) the quality of video recording previously available only by $50k cameras and systems.

thw2 wrote:
For casual and family photos, I like the idea of pulling 8 MP stills from video feed. The question is how much memory space do I need?

This would be the simple question asked by anyone intending to shoot video. The answer would revolve around how much video you intend to shoot.

In counter to Chez's later rebuttal of still images pulled from some sort of mindless video footage: It seems most likely there would be two "professional" approaches for acquiring the video that results in stills.

1) Shooting an event or sequence in video for the purpose of video viewing, and secondarily pulling stills off the footage while doing the video editing.

2) Shooting a planned video sequence intended to capture a precise moment in the movement, similar to shooting a high frame rate with a still camera. Uses could be for advertising (imagine a swirling dress or model's hair flinging water, etc.), or more readily in sports applications -- capturing the video feed for viewing and the stills pulled for "freeze frame".

Additionally -- I'm sure stacked or sampled video sequences (mini-bursts) will become commonplace for providing HDR, ultra-definition, and focus stacking types of image enhancement, rather than building 150MP sensors.

I really don't understand why some people have a problem envisioning the uses of video recording and still image production.

Regarding pulling stills from a video, I would agree with both points made above. Currently we are not there yet, but I can see that especially sports photographers in the future pull a high-res single photo from a video stream opposed to take a range of photos in a series with fast fps. Again this all comes back on sensor IQ and processing of the video stream (and photos also). At this point video might be superior for certain applications (also for other action shots) compared to the traditional photography.

Would I personally use it? Unlikely. Not because of technical limitations at this point, more that I would enjoy composing and taking the single photo as also pointed out above.

But seeing it from a technical point of view, in the future both will be possible very likely maybe in the same camera.